vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
wallpaper Ivanka Trump and Bingo Gubelmann. NEW YORK - OCTOBER 15: (HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
calaway42
10-21 12:26 AM
heh.. i want edwin's comp!!:)
dummgelauft
03-31 12:42 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
2011 Trump and Bingo Gubelmann
hpandey
04-29 10:54 AM
Thanks kaisersose.
Anyone else have any inputs. I need to make this decision soon and would appreciate as many inputs as possible.
Thanks.
H1-b extension rarely gets denied so you don't need to worry but if you are worried about it ( most people in the GC line have had their H1's renewed multiple times ) then use the EAD for working . EAD would also give you flexibility to change jobs in future to a better paying employer.
H1-b RFE or denial for you will not affect your GC process since you are a derivative application unless you have done something really illegal .
I would advise you not to get worried. You just need to decide whether you want to maintain your H1 status or work on EAD. Everything will be fine either way.
Anyone else have any inputs. I need to make this decision soon and would appreciate as many inputs as possible.
Thanks.
H1-b extension rarely gets denied so you don't need to worry but if you are worried about it ( most people in the GC line have had their H1's renewed multiple times ) then use the EAD for working . EAD would also give you flexibility to change jobs in future to a better paying employer.
H1-b RFE or denial for you will not affect your GC process since you are a derivative application unless you have done something really illegal .
I would advise you not to get worried. You just need to decide whether you want to maintain your H1 status or work on EAD. Everything will be fine either way.
more...
mrsr
02-20 10:37 AM
Thank you very much sir, I really Appriciate your help.
felix31
01-17 01:43 PM
Here is what we did..
It was back in 2000. We filed my husbands taxes as single. Then we filed W7 and mailed it. Some 3 months later I received ITIN. With that we filed amended return adding me and that was it. Everything is straightforward since then.
It was back in 2000. We filed my husbands taxes as single. Then we filed W7 and mailed it. Some 3 months later I received ITIN. With that we filed amended return adding me and that was it. Everything is straightforward since then.
more...
smit
02-27 09:20 PM
Can anyone tell me what was final outcome of this? and which state it was where this happened?
2010 Bingo Gubelmann and Byrdie Bell wearing Nina Ricci
furiouspride
08-03 06:22 PM
When I open this post the AD on the top of the page said "zero calorie noodles" ha ha I could not resist I had to write a few lines...
Dude - Life is too short, eat drink and be merry :p when you become 80 - even if you have 6 peck no one is going to want to look at you :D
(do some workout like fun sports (Gym is for the dedicated ones) to stay active)
Eat drink n be merry is all good. Just that you cant overdo it. O/w you will be on your way out @ 40 or worse yet, will have to deal with diabetes, cholesterol, hypertension etc. in the later part of your life. Key is to eat right and exercise. Cliched I know but I don't see too many people around sticking to this simple rule :)
Dude - Life is too short, eat drink and be merry :p when you become 80 - even if you have 6 peck no one is going to want to look at you :D
(do some workout like fun sports (Gym is for the dedicated ones) to stay active)
Eat drink n be merry is all good. Just that you cant overdo it. O/w you will be on your way out @ 40 or worse yet, will have to deal with diabetes, cholesterol, hypertension etc. in the later part of your life. Key is to eat right and exercise. Cliched I know but I don't see too many people around sticking to this simple rule :)
more...
leslie535
02-27 11:43 AM
Hi all
I am a green card holder. I received my green card through an application filed by a former employer, and received it in September 2004. I got married in Arpil 2006, my wife is from my home country, she had been in the US previously on an F-1 status which has since ran out. She became pregnant soon after we were married. She came up to the US last September on a B visa. She was given 6 months stay on her I-94; and had the baby here in January of 2007. Her expiration date on the I-94 is in 3 weeks and she is going to leave (with the baby) to maintain good status standing.
I filed for her (I-130) last July. Our plan at this time is for her to go to grad school, apply for a new F-1 to come back here. We are presently waiting for a decsion on the grad school application from the school she applied to.
I hope this isnt too confusing, but can anyone offer any suggestions or help with our situation? In terms of what options are out there for my wife to be here with me if things dont work out with grad school/ F-1 visa? As I mentioned I did file for her, but as I am not a citizen it will take longer. Also our newborn baby is a US citizen as she was born here.
Thank you!!
I am a green card holder. I received my green card through an application filed by a former employer, and received it in September 2004. I got married in Arpil 2006, my wife is from my home country, she had been in the US previously on an F-1 status which has since ran out. She became pregnant soon after we were married. She came up to the US last September on a B visa. She was given 6 months stay on her I-94; and had the baby here in January of 2007. Her expiration date on the I-94 is in 3 weeks and she is going to leave (with the baby) to maintain good status standing.
I filed for her (I-130) last July. Our plan at this time is for her to go to grad school, apply for a new F-1 to come back here. We are presently waiting for a decsion on the grad school application from the school she applied to.
I hope this isnt too confusing, but can anyone offer any suggestions or help with our situation? In terms of what options are out there for my wife to be here with me if things dont work out with grad school/ F-1 visa? As I mentioned I did file for her, but as I am not a citizen it will take longer. Also our newborn baby is a US citizen as she was born here.
Thank you!!
hair more flo may fashion jane bloomingdale-people Bingo gubelmann,
Sandeep
05-22 07:30 PM
US Congress warned on green card backlog
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919954/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919954/
more...
Prashanthi
06-26 01:57 PM
the above scenario applies only if their is a signed contract between him and the employer, does not apply to an agreement that was made between the recruiter and his employer as he is not a party to the contract.
hot In this photo: Benji Kohn, Bingo Gubelmann
gc_kaavaali
06-05 05:38 PM
Is it DHL courier service?
I dont know if other Folks have seen the same thing. My renewal EAD application has reached Texas (TSC) today June 5th around noon by USPS Express Mail but the status says
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. A second delivery attempt will be made. If unsuccessful, we will hold it for five business days and then it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.
The address where i sent is
USCIS
Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
Any clue what may be going on - this is another round of fun :confused:
I dont know if other Folks have seen the same thing. My renewal EAD application has reached Texas (TSC) today June 5th around noon by USPS Express Mail but the status says
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. A second delivery attempt will be made. If unsuccessful, we will hold it for five business days and then it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.
The address where i sent is
USCIS
Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
Any clue what may be going on - this is another round of fun :confused:
more...
house ingo in spanish
PavanV
09-06 02:28 PM
Boss,
Even in India some of the southern states dont like speaking in Hindi. In India, it is all about showing off, if your kid is here in US (as a slave on H1 B), Badi garv ki bat hai in India, dollar mein paisa banara hai na, isliye. The trend is more in AP (by the way i am from AP), where almost every family has one or more living and earning in phorein currency. As long as the native country cannot produce jobs for all (without reservations) and a decent standard of living, people will steal, lie, deceive, kill to come here to the US, and i guess they don't mind waiting for 20 yrs living as bounded slave, after all it is better here than the slum's isn't it ?
(Satire included :))
Well, first you need to learn basic English first. You should have written "Can we write in English?" rather than "Can we speak English?" as on these boards we write, we do not speak. And for your information, if any posts (In Hindi) are valuable, people of other nationalities will learn Hindi to gain knowledge out of those posts. So please don't worry much about other people writing in Hindi. I understand that you may be a born slave but do not impose your slavery attidue on others.
Even in India some of the southern states dont like speaking in Hindi. In India, it is all about showing off, if your kid is here in US (as a slave on H1 B), Badi garv ki bat hai in India, dollar mein paisa banara hai na, isliye. The trend is more in AP (by the way i am from AP), where almost every family has one or more living and earning in phorein currency. As long as the native country cannot produce jobs for all (without reservations) and a decent standard of living, people will steal, lie, deceive, kill to come here to the US, and i guess they don't mind waiting for 20 yrs living as bounded slave, after all it is better here than the slum's isn't it ?
(Satire included :))
Well, first you need to learn basic English first. You should have written "Can we write in English?" rather than "Can we speak English?" as on these boards we write, we do not speak. And for your information, if any posts (In Hindi) are valuable, people of other nationalities will learn Hindi to gain knowledge out of those posts. So please don't worry much about other people writing in Hindi. I understand that you may be a born slave but do not impose your slavery attidue on others.
tattoo Bingo Gubelmann (brother to
gc_dream07
02-01 01:22 PM
If you have enough money, invest 1million in US, and get GC, and buy peace of mind.
more...
pictures now $ per ingo gubelmann
Mayra75
12-31 05:22 PM
In the Comprehensive Bill (Pls. see summary of this bill) to be discussed on the Senate/House floor Feb-06, Page 6 Section 311 provides for exemption on temporary workers with advanced degrees from US universities from numerical limit.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
With this provision going into effect, it will free up current H1s that have gone towards the count of numerical limit in current financial Yr. USCIS may have to do the count again to differentiate between applicants with advanced degrees from US universities and come up with the number of free H1s. My guestimate is it maybe 30% of the total visa avaliable which is something like 30% of (65K+20K) ~ 25K.
Waldenpond :
Thanks for your reply,I read section 311 , it talks about people with advanced degree from US universities , so what about forgein-trained with noraml degree ? will these H1s visas will only for advanced degree ?
Thanks
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
With this provision going into effect, it will free up current H1s that have gone towards the count of numerical limit in current financial Yr. USCIS may have to do the count again to differentiate between applicants with advanced degrees from US universities and come up with the number of free H1s. My guestimate is it maybe 30% of the total visa avaliable which is something like 30% of (65K+20K) ~ 25K.
Waldenpond :
Thanks for your reply,I read section 311 , it talks about people with advanced degree from US universities , so what about forgein-trained with noraml degree ? will these H1s visas will only for advanced degree ?
Thanks
dresses In this photo: Ivanka Trump, Bingo Gubelmann
gparr
June 4th, 2004, 02:58 PM
I hope you don't mind but with about 20 minutes in photoshop...
:D
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
:D
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
more...
makeup eric trump, andrew saffir and uncle flo fulton ingo,
ramus
08-15 12:41 PM
Thanks for your contribution and willing to take part in DC rally.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
girlfriend producers Bingo Gubelmann
pkv
04-13 05:37 PM
So did you answer the RFE ? ....
Off course I did.. It was simple RFE for TB test. I just got it done and replied. Didn't take Attorney's help on this.
Off course I did.. It was simple RFE for TB test. I just got it done and replied. Didn't take Attorney's help on this.
hairstyles NEW YORK - JULY 16: Producer Bingo Gubelmann attends the #39;Homecoming#39;
rockstart
09-08 10:48 AM
I tried and it worked. First time the call did not go through but second time it worked. Thanks for the info. Free is always sweet.
rabs
04-12 06:31 AM
Sorry i keep on asking same questions again and again. I could not find any answer for that. What should I fill in "date of application" for priviously applied I-765, it should be date from EAD when they approved it or should it be the the date on which they received my application.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
AOS pending
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
AOS pending
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
